Big Post Easter Snow Storm Hit Monday, Guess What Got Blamed?

Can you really blame me when I call them a cult?

(CNY News) It’s the last thing we want following Easter – a snowstorm that may bring up to 11 inches of the white stuff with it! I know, it’s hard to imagine now that we are already enjoying seeing spring flowers like daffodils, hyacinth, and other early-blooming flowers all around but that’s exactly what’s heading our way according to the National Weather Service in Binghamton.

A Winter Storm Warning is set to begin tonight at 6:00 pm (lasting until 12:00 pm Tuesday) for the following counties: Chenango, Delaware, Madison, Otsego, Oneida, and Sullivan. Heavy snow is expected with a range of 5 to 11 inches of accumulation. Unfortunately, it will be heavy snow which can be difficult to shovel and is also very slippery on roads and sidewalks. The additional threat with heavy snow is the potential for power outages as trees limbs fall under the heavy weight of the snow.

In some areas, the snow is expected to fall rapidly at times, at a rate of up to 3 inches an hour and we all know how dangerous traveling can be when that happens, with low visibility and very slick road conditions. (big snip)

Weather caused 80% of the power outages between 2003 and 2012, according to Climate Central. As climate change increases the number of extreme weather events we see within a year, it stands to reason that the number of power outages we see in the space of a year will increase as well. Do yourself a favor, and subscribe to your local weather alerts so that you can be in the know when these types of events are expected.


(CBS Pittsburgh) One of the biggest areas of concern when it comes to climate change is the risk of more severe weather.

In just the past year, we’ve seen tornadoes in late October, record-setting snowfalls in mid-March and more frequent flash flooding. But are we actually seeing increasing extreme weather here in southwestern Pennsylvania or does it just seem that way? (snip)

The takeaway? It does appear western Pennsylvania’s severe weather patterns are changing, although slightly.


Sigh. Cult


Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

25 Responses to “Big Post Easter Snow Storm Hit Monday, Guess What Got Blamed?”

  1. Professor Hale says:

    Weather information is inaccessible and oriented to priviledged identities?

    Seriously? Blacks don’t get the same weather channel for the past 40 years that whites get? Black people’s smart phones don’t come preloaded with the same weather apps as white people? It’s as if activists don’t even hear themselves when they speak.

    • Two Gun Safes Elwood P. dOwd says:

      The perfesser immediately thinks Black Americans are receiving benefits they don’t need! It’s the first thing all wingers think.

      Here are the groups they were actually trying to reach:

      Do you speak:
      Hindi / Urdu

      • david7134 says:

        No, he did not say that. And blacks should not receive anything based on the color of their skin, which they do, as per my neighbor and others in the black community. Oh, the neighbor is black. Quit making things up.

        • Professor Hale says:

          As usual, there is no point engaging Jeff. He doesn’t listen and has no interest in reasoned discussion. I recently did foreign travel to Africa and South Asia. Know what I saw? Smart phones everywhere. All of them had weather apps in their own language, just like ours do. It is just racist to think that just because people look different that they cannot access information like “Us supreme white people”.

          Here is a response ready for Jeff to Cut-Paste: As usual there in no point engaging connies, they don’t listen… blah blah blah.

  2. NATO Elwood P. dOwd says:

    Bury your head in the sand, bury your head in the snow? What’s the difference.

    • alanstorm says:

      Let us know – you’re the expert.

    • James Lewis says:

      Dear Elwood:

      “The most important thing to remember about climate models which are used to project future global warming is that they were “tuned” with the assumption I started this article with: that the climate system is in a natural state of energy balance, and that there is no long-term climate change unless humans cause it.

      This is an arbitrary and illogical assumption. The climate system is an example of a “nonlinear dynamical system”, which means it can change all by itself. For example, slow changes in the rate of vertical overturning of the world’s oceans can cause global warming (or global cooling) with no “external forcing” of the climate system whatsoever…….”

  3. RW says:

    I live smack dab in the middle of the state here in North Dakota. I have some rural property near a small town 50 miles from my other residence in town. There was a record low temp of 4 degrees F surpassing the old record of 11 degrees F set in 1928.

    Never so much snow in April and never has it been this cold this time of year in April.

    Snowstorms come and go every year, but this one buried everything in 3 to 4 feet of snow.

    Another half a foot is expected Saturday night to Sunday.

    Depending upon the year, the high record temp in April is 86 degrees F set in 1910, the record low on this date was set in 1922 at -1 degree F.

    Can’t do a thing about the weather. Still your fault.

    130 billion mammals on the planet and humans are stupid enough to believe they can control carbon emissions. Idiots. Elephants eat 300 to 600 pounds of plants and grasses every day. It’s your fault.

    After Novarupta exploded in 1913, the climates did change some.

    Search the name ‘Roger Revelle’, you’ll be fully informed from the world’s original oceanographer.

  4. Jl says:

    Who got blamed? No doubt Trump, global warming or racism

  5. NOAA Elwood P. dOwd says:

    Do you have evidence that the current bout of global warming resulted from “slow changes in the rate of vertical overturning of the world’s oceans”? Or from undersea volcanoes or some other repository adding heat to the atmosphere other than the Sun?

    Dr Spencer understands that other inputs/outputs can influence the mean global surface temperature as measured at any one time. For example, El Ninos and La Ninas change the distribution of heat between the oceans and atmosphere. Volcanoes and other events can add particulates to the atmosphere reducing sunlight reaching the Earth. Clouds have a variable effect by both reducing insolation but by also reducing the escape of infrared radiation to space. Soot on ice can increase absorbance and decrease albedo. Ice reflects sunlight, ocean waters absorb it. Changes in the major ocean currents can change temperature distribution. Importantly, changes in the Earth’s orbit and angle to the Sun can change insolation – believed to be responsible for the beginning and end of glacial and interglacial periods. And these factors are all interconnected.

    But the principle input is insolation and principle output is the escape of infrared radiation to deep space.

    • david7134 says:

      The entire time you have been here for the last decade or more, you have not once demonstrated a link between CO2 and any climate concerns.

      • Elwood P. dOwd says:


        That’s just more of your bullshit. We’re not responsible for your ignorance and inability to learn.

        Anyway, you reject the science of global warming because you reject the possible responses. A grown-up and more honest approach would be to offer responses from a conservative viewpoint. Conservatives make themselves look ignorant and childish by not acknowledging scientific facts.

        The great Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek pointed to exactly this “propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because [the conservative] dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it” as the most objectionable feature of conservatism.

        Don’t be ignorant and childish.

        • L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

          That’s a bogus quote. Hayek never wrote that. You’re making shit up.

          You keep insisting we all reject global warming science. We don’t. What most of us reject is man made global warming as put forth by non scientists, models that start at the desired goal and work backward and 50 years of totally incorrect predictions. You guys can’t even define what a woman is yet you think you can define what global warming is?

          FJB and man made global warming.

          • Two Gun Safes Elwood P. dOwd says:

            That dumbass liar and denier, L.G. Brandon!, L.G. Brandon! claims Hayek didn’t say what he said or write what he wrote. Once a denier, always a denier. For years, we’ve pointed out to global warming deniers that they deny the science because they don’t like the proposed solutions. It’s obvious.

            Let’s deal with One Lie at a Time…

            Here’s more on the topic from Nobel laureate Friedrich. A. Hayek:

            Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it – or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest
            theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept
            separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little
            patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called
            “mechanistic” explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral
            consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those
            who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all.

            By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how.
            Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to
            be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Rimjob: Don’t be ignorant and childish.

            Bwaha! Lolgfy

            BTW, Hayek was a free market capitalist and an ardent critic of socialism.
            Are you really that stupid?


    • Jl says:

      And, not surprisingly, the IPCC has ignored atmospheric albedo. See these figures showing that atmospheric albedo has twice the forcing of CO2. Uh-oh…But take a look at the IPCC’s “components of radiative forcing” chart. I may be missing something, but where is water vapor listed, by far the most powerful greenhouse gas?

  6. Hairy says:

    RW are you thinking the global elephant nt population is lol increasing? No?

  7. L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

    You’ll have to do better than that, liar. Where did you get that bogus “quote”? Just copying some BS from Wiki won’t cut it. We all know Wiki is a leftist ewer.


  8. L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

    You’ll have to do better than that, liar. Where did you get that bogus “quote”? Just copying some BS from Wiki won’t cut it. We all know Wiki is a leftist sewer.


    • Two Gun Safes Elwood P. dOwd says:

      L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! is a belligerent Denier. He denies everything.

      Here’s basic Hayek for you.

      Hayek opposed socialism AND dumbass conservatism. Don’t be a dumbass.

      • L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

        If you would show some proof that was actually written by Hayek it would be fine. So far you just keep copying and pasting stuff with no context, no citations. Besides, I have no intention of allowing a douche like you you rewrite history. So far you’ve attributed it to Hayek but have shown no definitive proof he actually wrote it and if he did under what context or circumstances. Whoever wrote this was trying to slur Hayek and you believed it just like you believe FJB won the 2020 election. A guy who ran for president three times and finally was installed (not elected) on his third time with more votes than any president in history. If you can believe that you can believe anything.

        FJB or as we like to call him Robinette.

  9. The catholic but not Catholic Elwood P. dOwd says:

    The nuCon movement can’t be as stupid as evidenced by 90% of the con-menters here. But then they think DonJon tRumPutin, Cawthorn, MT Greene, Gosar, Cruz, Hawley and Boebert are smart and moral.

    Hayek was right about conservative “thought”.

    • Dana says:

      Surely you are aware that “90% of the con-menters here” aren’t that impressed with the brilliance you seem to think you have.

  10. Est1950 says:

    Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to
    be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.

    Hayek exposes the entire leftist mantra in this sentence quoted by the resident pontificator of all things communist.

    I shall take a page from the man’s book who started out bashing conservatives for their stance on AGW by flipping to Evolution so allow me to do the same segway.

    Masks work. Therefore the facts are that wearing a mask will reduce the likelihood of spreading covid and or disease. However, because they work does not mean they have no consequences regarding the mental health and wellbeing of the entire population of the world in regards to feeling an inferior sense of safety by wearing a mask that is shown to only be 1-2 percent effective. As in the cloth masks sown by momma that do not have to be replaced daily.

    This is a consequence the man Hayek refers to that is disproportionate to the effectiveness of the solution. Ridding the world of fossil fuels is a forgone conclusion. The time frame is not. Ridding the world of Covid is the goal of medicine but its time frame is not known.

    Many things that occur in the world can fall into the strawman argument this Mr. Hayek makes.

    Smoking Cigarettes causes cancer. Why then does the world allow smoking? An MRI is expensive. Why is an Echo Cardiogram more expensive than an MRI when the machines in question are nowhere nearly as equal in cost for the hospital? Consequences of action. Doctors who study heart medicine have much larger bills to pay off than do doctors who study radiology. This was a fact that was brought to my attention by a Heart specialist who was trying to justify his expensive consultation.

    Mr. Hayek suggests that a conservative fails to regale in facts suggesting a moral equivalence by not believing the facts as presented by a body who is suggesting the world give them trillions of dollars to solve a solution which they are totally incapable of accomplishing by any level of rational thought. To the unassuming conservative this looks like a Mafia organization offering a deal you can’t refuse.

    The end result is certainly as the man suggests, a solution that they find objectionable. I don’t think any conservatives are married to fossil fuels. If those who are married to green energy could offer an alternative that works in all situations then there would be little to stand in the way of their agenda.

    This green agenda might be doable for North America and much of Europe but it is certainly not doable by the rest of the world which has little to no money and depends upon coal-fired plants to provide what little power they have in nations such as Somalia, India, etc.

    His argument is based upon morality and yet the very argument he makes is immoral to a majority of the world forcing them to become even poorer because their countries do have not the money to build windmills, solar panels, and other means of green energy.

    Therefore I reject his argument and the reason for his argument. Morality does not fall under the left’s prevue. It is not something they can claim and I will not go down the rabbit hole of why.

Pirate's Cove